The Value of the People (the Sheep)

4

MINISTRY

The Twelve and the Seven

Most churches have some kind of leadership, pastorate or ministry, although they differ in their understanding of it. Yet the Acts of the Apostles throws light on God’s purpose for church leaders, especially in chapters 6 (the appointment of the Seven) and 20 (Paul’s exhortation to the elders of the Ephesian church).

In the early chapters of Acts Luke does two things. On the one hand he describes the birth and growth of the body of Christ on the Day of Pentecost. On the other he outlines the strategy of Satan, who sought to smother the infant church. One might almost say that, if the chief actor in Acts 1—2 was the Holy Spirit, the chief actor in Acts 3—6 was that evil spirit called Satan.

True, the devil is mentioned by name only once. This is in Acts 5:3, where Peter asked Ananias how it was that Satan had filled his heart to lie to the Holy Spirit. To outward appearances one man had told a lie to another man. But Peter had the discernment to see beneath the surface. He saw the evil spirit lying to the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Satan had “filled” Ananias’ heart to do so. It was a diabolical parody of Peter being “filled with the Holy Spirit” (4:8). Our topic, then, is the threefold strategy of Satan.

His first and crudest tactic was physical violence or persecution. He tried to crush the church by force. His second and more subtle tactic was moral compromise: having failed to destroy the church from the outside, he tried to corrupt it from the inside through the deceit of Ananias and Sapphira. His third and subtlest tactic was social distraction: he tried to deflect the apostles from their priority tasks of preaching and prayer. If he had succeeded, and the apostles had given up preaching, an untaught church would have been exposed to every wind of false doctrine.

So these were the devil’s chief weapons: persecution, corruption and distraction. Now I do not claim any close personal familiarity with the devil. But what I do know is that he is utterly unscrupulous and entirely lacking in imagination. He has changed neither his strategy nor his tactics. He is still in the same old rut. So a study of his campaign against the early church should alert us. It will leave us no excuse if we are taken by surprise. For my purpose in this chapter, we will concentrate on the third tactic. The story is told in Acts 6:1-7.

AN EVERY-MEMBER MINISTRY

It was a time of exciting church growth (Acts 6:1): “The number of the disciples was increasing.” But at the same time a serious quarrel broke out between the Grecian Jews (whose language and culture were Greek) and the Hebraic Jews (whose language and culture were Hebrew). The former complained against the latter that their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. At first, it seems that the apostles were trying to tackle the problem themselves. They knew from the Old Testament that God was committed to the care of widows, for “he defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow” (Deuteronomy 10:18). But the apostles were in danger of becoming preoccupied with administration and of neglecting the ministry of the word.

Faced with these problems, the apostles did a wise thing. They did not impose a solution. Instead they called a church meeting, seeking the wisdom of the whole body. “It would not be right,” they said, “for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables” (Acts 6:2). There is no hint that the apostles regarded social ministry as in any way inferior to pastoral ministry, or beneath their dignity as apostles. It was entirely a question of calling. The apostles had no liberty to be deflected from their God-given tasks.

So the apostles made a suggestion, namely that the church should choose seven of their number who were known to be “full of the Spirit and wisdom,” meaning perhaps “spiritually and practically minded.” Then the apostles would delegate the care of the widows to them, the Twelve to the Seven, while they would concentrate on preaching and prayer. For without prayer it would be unlikely that the seeds sown by the Spirit would be fruitful (Acts 6:3-4).

The church saw the point and agreed. They chose seven men, including Stephen and Philip, whose names all sound Greek, surely to reassure the Grecian Jews who had lodged the original complaint. The church then presented the seven to the apostles, who both prayed for them and laid their hands on them, thus commissioning and authorizing them to exercise their new responsibility (Acts 6:5-6).

“Everybody cannot do everything.”

A vital principle is embedded in this incident, which the church urgently needs to re-learn in every generation, namely that “everybody cannot do everything.” Indeed, everybody is not called to do everything. Or let me express this principle in three positive statements:

It is obviously deliberate that the work of the Twelve and the work of the Seven are both called diakonia (“ministry”). The Twelve were called to the diakonia of the word (Acts 6:4) or to pastoral ministry, while the Seven were called to the diakonia of tables (Acts 6:2) or to social ministry. Neither ministry is inferior to the other. On the contrary, both are Christian ministries (ways of serving God). Both require Spirit-filled people to exercise them. And both can be full-time Christian ministries. The only difference between them is that they are different! The ministry of tables is social ministry, while the ministry of the word is pastoral ministry.

All Christians are called to ministry.

We do a great disservice to the church whenever we refer to the pastorate as “the” ministry. For if we use the definite article, we give the impression that we think the pastorate is the only ministry there is. I repented of this decades ago, and invite my readers to join me in penitence today. If somebody says in my presence nowadays that so and so is “going into the ministry,” I try to look innocent and respond “Oh really? Which ministry do you mean?” To this my interlocutor usually replies “the pastoral ministry”—to which I reply “Why did you not say so?”

The truth is that diakonia is a generic word for ministry or service. It lacks specificity until we add an adjective—pastoral, social, evangelistic, missionary, medical, legal, educational, administrative and many more. For example, in Romans 13:4 magistrates and other officials of the state are called diakonoi Theou, servants of God, the very expression which could be applied to pastors and other servants of the church.

Let me now sum up the principle which is illustrated in this passage. It is that all Christians are called to ministry (diakonia). Because we are followers of him who said he had come not to be served but to serve (Mark 10:45), it is inconceivable that we should spend our lives in any other way than ministry or service. But there is a wide diversity of gifts, callings and ministries, and we have to discover our gifts and help others to discover theirs.

As a direct result of the apostles’ delegating the administration to the Seven, and their concentrating on their calling, we read: “So the word of God spread” and “the number of disciples … increased rapidly” (Acts 6:7). It is only logical that the word cannot spread when the ministry of the word is neglected.

There is a particular application of this principle to the local church. Indeed, it is vital for the health of the local church that pastors and people learn this lesson. True, pastors are not apostles. For the apostles formulated the gospel, whereas pastors are called to expound what the apostles have bequeathed to the church. So it is a real ministry of the word to which pastors dedicate their lives. Yet too often they get distracted and even overwhelmed by administration.

Sometimes it is the pastors’ fault, for they want to keep all the reins of leadership in their own hands and refuse to delegate. But sometimes it is the people’s fault, for they want their pastor to be a general factotum. “We pay him,” they may say, “so let him get on with it!” In either case the consequence is disastrous. The standards of preaching decline, and the lay people have little opportunity to exercise their gifts, since the pastor usurps them. So the church falls sick. What is needed is a basic biblical recognition that God calls different people to different ministries. Then the people will ensure that the pastor is set free from unnecessary administration, and pastors will ensure that the people are free to exercise their gifts. It is through this reciprocal liberation that the church will flourish.

God calls different people to different ministries.

I may just add that what Luke describes in the Acts the apostle Paul confirms in his letters. Writing about the charismata (spiritual gifts), he emphasizes that there is a wide variety of them (wider than the twelve listed in 1 Corinthians), and that they are intended for the common good, even to build up the body of Christ. Luke and Paul both teach what is sometimes called “the every-member ministry of the body of Christ.”

THE PASTORAL MINISTRY

We turn now from this every-member ministry, which is shared by all, to the pastoral ministry which is given to some, especially the leadership team.

There is much uncertainty today about the role of the church’s leaders. What are “clergy,” if we use this word? Are they priests or pastors, preachers, presbyters, prophets or psychotherapists? Are they educators, facilitators, administrators, managers or social workers? Different answers are given to these questions. In fact the church has oscillated between two opposite unbiblical extremes, namely clericalism (putting them on a pedestal) and anti-clericalism (knocking them off again). Now that churches have recovered the every-member ministry of the local church, people are asking whether clergy are not redundant.

Against this background of uncertainty we turn with relief to Scripture, and in particular to Paul’s valedictory address at Miletus to the elders of the Ephesian church (Acts 20:17-38), in which he reflects on his labors among them. We note immediately two characteristics of the oversight of the local church which Paul assumes.

Christian oversight is pastoral oversight.

First, Christian oversight is pastoral oversight. The Greek verb in Acts 20:28 (poimaino) means to do the work of a shepherd or to tend a flock, especially by feeding it. So pastors are called essentially to a teaching ministry. Whether we are preaching to a congregation, training a group or counseling individuals, ours is a pastoral ministry, a ministry of the word. But how do shepherds feed their sheep? The answer is that they don’t. To be sure, if a lamb is sick, a shepherd may bottle-feed it. But usually he leads his sheep into good pastures where they feed themselves.

Second, Christian oversight is plural oversight. In Miletus the apostle sent for the “elders” (plural) of the Ephesian church. There is no biblical warrant for the so-called one-man band, in which a single pastor, like a single musician, plays all the instruments. On the contrary, from the first missionary journey onwards Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders for them in each church” (Acts 14:23), and later Paul instructed Titus to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5). We need, therefore, to recover the concept of the pastoral team in the leadership of the local church. It might consist of full-time and part-time pastors, salaried and voluntary, ordained and lay, younger and older.

There is no biblical warrant for the so-called one-man band.

Tentatively I would add to this list “men and women.” The question of women’s ministry continues to divide Christian people. Although it is too complex an issue to unravel in a single paragraph, Christians who look to Scripture for their guidance are agreed on certain fundamental truths. Men and women are equal bearers of the divine image and of the earthly dominion (Genesis 1:27), and equal beneficiaries of God’s grace in Christ (1 Peter 3:7; Galatians 3:26-28). Thus we are equal before God by both creation and redemption. But we are also complementary to one another (Genesis 2:18-25), and in this complementarity God has given men a certain “headship” (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:22). How then can equality and complementarity be reconciled? In particular, how can women teach men without infringing masculine headship? Perhaps by remembering that “headship” means responsibility rather than authority (Ephesians 5:25-30); that what Paul forbids is not so much an office as an attitude (pride); that what is regarded as inappropriate in the behavior and ministry of women varies from culture to culture; and finally, that the team ministry should be the norm, in which all members, including women, contribute their particular gifts to the common good.

Remembering, then, that the leadership of the local church should be both pastoral and plural, we are ready to note how Paul in his speech develops the pastoral metaphor. First, he describes himself and the elders as shepherds. Second, he warns them of the rise of false teachers, whom he characterizes as wolves. And third he affirms the value of the people who are God’s sheep.

THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLE (THE SHEPHERD)

In Acts 20:18-27 Paul reminds the elders of his example while in Ephesus. He is able to say that he has no regrets about his ministry among them. In particular there had been a degree of thoroughness about his ministry which was quite extraordinary, and which left his conscience clear. It had three aspects.

First, Paul had been thorough in his teaching. He calls his message “the gospel of God’s grace” (Acts 20:24) and “the kingdom” (Acts 20:25). He had also taught them “repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21 NAB). Here are some of the great themes of the gospel—grace and faith, divine rule and human commitment. In addition he twice says that he did not shrink from his teaching responsibility, or hesitate to declare both anything profitable to them and the whole plan and purpose of God.

Second, Paul had been thorough in his outreach. His goal had been not only to teach the whole purpose of God but also to reach the whole population of Ephesus. He wanted to teach everything to everybody! In consequence his ministry embraced both Jews and Gentiles, both residents and visitors. He spent three months in the synagogue evangelizing Jews and more than two years in the hall of Tyrannus, “so that all the residents of Asia,” that is, of the Roman province of Asia, of which Ephesus was the capital, “heard the word of the Lord” (Acts 19:10 RSV).

Paul’s thoroughness remains a challenge to us today.

Third, Paul had been thorough in his methods. He threw himself heart and soul into his ministry. He taught people both publicly (in the synagogue and Tyrannus’ hall) and privately (“from house to house”). He also continued day and night. So the apostle had been absolutely indefatigable. Nothing could stop him, not even the fears and trials he experienced. Indeed, he did not consider his life to be of value, since he was quite ready to lay it down, to die as a martyr in the service of the gospel. His ambition was to complete the task which the Lord Jesus had given him, and he had no ulterior motives.

Such was the pastoral thoroughness of the apostle’s three years in Ephesus. He omitted no part of God’s revealed message. He neglected no segment of the local community. He left no method untried to reach the city. On the contrary, he shared all possible truth with all possible people by all possible means. He taught the whole gospel to the whole city with his whole heart. In consequence he could make this solemn claim, echoing Ezekiel’s calling as a faithful watchman: “I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men” (Acts 20:26; see Ezekiel 3; 33).

Paul’s example must have been an unfailing inspiration to the Ephesian elders, and his thoroughness remains a challenge to us today.

THE INVASION OF FALSE TEACHERS (THE WOLVES)

So far, in the pastoral metaphor which Paul is developing, he has focused on the shepherd and the sheep. Now (Acts 20:28-31) he introduces his hearers to the wolves. It is because savage wolves were going to come in and not spare the flock that the Ephesian elders must be diligent in teaching the truth. Their care of the sheep must be all the more conscientious because of the danger from the wolves.

Now wolves were in the ancient Middle East (and still are in some northern territories) the chief enemy of sheep. Wolves hunt both singly and in packs, and sheep are defenseless against them. Shepherds cannot afford to relax their vigilance. Nor can Christian pastors today.

Paul explains what he means. “Even from your own number men will arise and will distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:30). And the apostle’s prophecy came true, as we see when we read his two later letters to Timothy and Christ’s letter to the Ephesian church in Revelation 2. Jesus himself had warned of false prophets. He described them as wearing sheep’s clothing, while inwardly they were ferocious wolves (Matthew 7:15).

Therefore, Paul warned the Ephesian elders, “be on your guard!” Good shepherds (like those in the fields near Bethlehem) must keep watch over their flock by day and night. Just so, good pastors are concerned to guard their people against false teachers. We see, then, that a double task is given to the shepherds of Christ’s flock. First, they are to feed the sheep; second, they are to rout the wolves. That is, they are both to teach the truth and to combat error. Paul later tells Titus that candidates for the presbyterate must hold firmly to the teaching of the apostles, so that they may both give instruction in sound teaching and refute those who oppose it (Titus 1:9).

A double task is given to the shepherds of Christ’s flock.

This emphasis on the need to speak against false teaching is very unpopular today. It is frequently said that we must always be positive in our teaching, never negative. But those who say this have either not read the New Testament or, having read it, disagree with it. For our Lord Jesus and his apostles both refuted error themselves and urged us to do the same. I sometimes wonder if the neglect of this necessary ministry is not a major cause of contemporary theological confusion. Theological controversy is always distasteful to sensitive Christian spirits. Woe to us if we enjoy it! But we cannot conscientiously avoid it. If we say and do nothing about obvious false teaching, or if we turn round and flee, we will justly earn the pejorative name “hireling” or “hired servant” who cares nothing for the sheep.

Are we to abandon Christ’s flock defenseless against the wolves, sheep without a shepherd? Must we say of the church what God said through Ezekiel about Israel: “So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd and they became food for all the wild beasts” (Ezekiel 34:5). No! It is our plain duty to protect God’s flock from error and to establish it in the truth.

THE VALUE OF THE PEOPLE (THE SHEEP)

After the example of the shepherd and the danger of the wolves, Paul turns to the value of the sheep.

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

Implicit in verse 28 is the truth that the pastoral oversight of the church belongs to God. He is the supreme overseer of his own people. Indeed each of the three persons of the Trinity has a share in this oversight.

It is not our church; it is God’s.

First, the church is God’s church. It is not certain whether we should read “the church of God” (as in NAB and NIV) or “the church of the Lord” (as in RSV and NEB). In either case the church is God’s church; it belongs ultimately to God the Father.

Second, it is not certain whether we should read that God purchased it “with his own blood” (NIV) or “with the blood of his own” (as in RSV and NEB), meaning “of his only Son.” In either case the church has been bought with the blood of Christ. Third, over this church (which belongs to God and has been bought by Christ) it is the Holy Spirit who appoints the overseers. So the oversight is his too, or he could not delegate it.

This is a splendid Trinitarian truth about the church, namely that it belongs to God the Father, has been redeemed by the blood of Christ his Son, and has overseers appointed by God the Holy Spirit.

This fact should humble us. Although we may be privileged to be church leaders, yet it is not our church; it is God’s. We have no proprietary rights over it. It may be appropriate for kings and queens to refer to “my people,” but I doubt if it is ever appropriate for pastors to refer to “my church.” When the Corinthians developed their personality cult and said “I belong to Paul” or “I belong to Peter,” Paul contradicted them and deliberately reversed their claim. “All things are yours,” he wrote, “whether Paul or Apollos or Peter” (1 Corinthians 3:21-22). In other words, “you do not belong to us, we rather belong to you.” To be consistent, therefore, we should refer to God’s church which we have been called to serve.

This truth should not only humble but also inspire us, and especially motivate us to the loving care of God’s people. We need this incentive, for sheep are not at all the clean and cuddly creatures they look from a distance. On the contrary, they are dirty and subject to nasty pests. They need to be regularly dipped in strong chemicals to rid them of lice, ticks and worms. They are also unintelligent and obstinate. I hesitate to apply the metaphor too literally, or describe the people of God as “dirty, lousy and stupid!” But some church members can be a great trial to their pastors, and vice versa. So how shall we persevere in loving the unlovable? Only, I think, by remembering how precious they are. They are so valuable that the three persons of the Trinity are together involved in caring for them. I find it very challenging, when trying to help a difficult person, to say under my breath: “How precious you are in God’s sight! God the Father loves you. Christ died for you. The Holy Spirit has appointed me your pastor. As the three persons of the Trinity are committed to your welfare, it is a privilege for me to serve you.”

Richard Baxter’s great book The Reformed Pastor (1656) is an exposition of Acts 20:28. Here is a quotation from it:

Oh then, let us hear these arguments of Christ, whenever we feel ourselves grow dull and careless: Did I die for them, and will you not look after them? Were they worth my blood, and are they not worth your labour? Did I come down from heaven to earth, to seek and to save that which was lost, and will you not go to the next door or street or village to seek them? How small is your labour and condescension as to mine! I debased myself to this, but it is your honour to be so employed. Have I done and suffered so much for their salvation; and was I willing to make you a co-worker with me, and will you refuse what little lies on your hands?1

↑ Back to top